ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

[coma]

Amazing that Glenn Beck predicted this was going to happen while he was still working for Fox News in 2010 but of course everybody dismissed him at that time as a nut case

Blind Freddy could have predicted this was going to happen. I did. Yet so many in the upper echelons choose the denial path.

[webfact]

Iraq conflict: All options open to fight insurgents - Obama

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama says his government is looking at "all options", including military action, to help Iraq fight Islamist militants.

But the White House also insisted it had no intention of sending ground troops.

The remarks came after the cities of Mosul and Tikrit fell to Sunni Islamist insurgents during a lightning advance.

The US has begun moving defence contractors working with the Iraqi military to safer areas.

"We can confirm that US citizens, under contract to the government of Iraq, in support of the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme in Iraq, are being temporarily relocated by their companies due to security concerns in the area," state department spokesperson Jen Psaki said.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27823955

-- BBC 2014-06-13

[morrobay]

Invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like invading Finland after Pearl Harbor. Saddam had to go but thats what .50 cal snipers are for. And as noted above the vacuum was caused by dismantling the Iraqi army instead of incorporating them. Afghanistan is another disaster,

The original intent was to get an escaping Bin Laden. But instead of sending in the US Army Rangers the task was contracted to the locals.

So now the US is nation building a 16th century country. Next disaster is Libya: The US supports Ghadaffi's downfall and the thanks is an attack on US diplomatic compound.

Edited June 13, 2014 by morrobay

[boomerangutang]

There have been armed conflicts in that region since the once-pristine wetlands along the Tigris and Euphrates were destroyed. From the time humans began overpopulating that region, and destroying natural habitat, it's been on and off conflict and misery. I say, let the militias take property, let the Sunni regions join with equally screwed up Syria - or let them create their own Sharia Law miserable little land-locked fiefdom. Re-draw the lines in the desert, I don't give a flying fig, as long as they don't spread their environment-destroying, female-prosecuting culture further afield.

[Johpa]

While I agree that the term "terrorist" is highly subjective and should be replaced by insurgent as a more accurate description (whilst not excusing the brutal acts conducted by some insurgents), your focus on "Big Oil" is both overstated and outdated.

The supermajors are in fact fairly small and peripheral players in the global oil industry today, with a lot of expertise but are basically scrabbling for the crumbs and JVs, compared to the state owned oil companies.

In the 1950's the "seven sisters" (now "Big Oil" or supermajors) controlled 85% of global oil reserves. Today state owned oil companies own 90% of global reserves.

Agreed that globally "Big Oil" represents a far smaller percentage of the global market than decades ago, but their political influence within the US has not seen the same decrease in significance.

As for shareholders, give them a token return on their dollar but no more. They made a bad investment in companies that cost the taxpayer far more.

[boomerangutang]

I can somewhat understand why the US wants to put its dog in the fight. Alternatively, why doesn't the US just withdraw. The millions of men with guns in region are determined to keep it miserable.

US doesn't discount military action, but doesn't want to deploy added troops there. Here's the scenario I see (just dusted off my crystal ball):

Remember when Iraqi troops were fleeing Kuwait when they realized their game was over? Then US fighter jets bombed the allah-excrement out of them on that miserable road going north. Not one single country nor even a UN complaint after that strike. Picture several thousand rag-tag ISIS militants straggling along in the desert, some on foot, some in commandeered jeeps and trucks. Along come a couple US fighter jets (did the Warthogs get mothballed?) ....boom boom boom, (not referring to what a farang does with a Thai floozy) - another trail of vaporized vehicles and bodies in the desert. All so familiar in that part of the world. Will Allah smile or frown? It depends on who He thinks are the bad guys, because everything Allah sees is either black or white, very good or very bad.

[Asiantravel]

the US is about to unleash hell against the same Al Qaeda extremists it was arming across the border in Syria and my brain hurts

[Asiantravel]

Tony Blair: West must take sides against growing threat of radical Islam

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/23/tony-blair-west-take-sides-growing-threat-radical-islam

oh shut up Tony

[Fat Haggis]

One thing that people seem to be forgetting here, is that the Iraqi People, and that includes the Sunni's do not want the ISIS nor want an Islamic State within Iraq either.
The Sunni tribes that formed much of the insurgency turned their guns away from the coalition and sided with them, to purge Iraq of Al Qiada, and the other Wahabbi extremists, in other words, they supported the Iraqi Government to rid the country of an undesirable element, and the levels of violence had dropped significantly, and Iraq had turned a corner.

Slowly as the Iraqi Government started dismantling the security that was in place, as in the walled districts, and checkpoints, the sleeping dogs within ISIS/AQ started to awaken, and over the past 18 months, the levels of violence against Iraqi citizens has increased, that is what makes the ISIS terrorists, they are not attacking military and strategic targets, they're attacking markets and mosques, where everyday Iraq's congregate, and they're also targetting once again, the Shia within this area.

I am down in the South, and it's predominantly Shia, and have been here since 2008, prior to that I was in Baghdad from 2004-2008, and the South has never seen the levels of violence since 2008 that Baghdad has suffered. In the past week alone Baghdad had over 14 VBIED's, it was claimed early on last year that the ISIS were a spent force, and no longer had the finances, the volunteers, or the weapons to continue their actions against the people of Iraq.

Oh how that has changed dramatically over the past 72 hours, they're now the richest terror group in history, and have access to modern technology dropped by an Iraqi Army that hadn't the stomach for a fight, we cynics who have been here so long knew they were never a real Army, and that if push came to shove, they'd do what they've always done, RUN!!!!. Every time I read an Int report about the Leaders of these cells being killed and it was being celebrated I just smirked and said to myself, they are a hydra, cut one head off, it's replaced by another, and the cycle repeats itself over and over and over again.

The fact that the Iraqi Intelligence never seen this coming has to be questioned, as well as why the US Intelligence never seen this coming either, they were caught flatfooted on this one, the ISIS know there's no functioning Iraqi Government just now either, so they're capitalising on their indecision's, but to what cost? Malaki may have been elected for a 3rd term, but he's has to rely on a coalition to form Parliament (sounds familiar eh? ).

The ISIS have been able to overrun many places in the North that took the coalition months to do during "Iraqi Freedom" and handing out fruit and veg to the locals is their way of hearts and minds (hmmmm another familiar tone about this) which makes you wonder that if the Allied coalition had used cucumbers, potatoes and Apples instead of PGM's, Depleted Uranium and Tracer rounds, they might have been able to take Iraq without a shot being fired!!!

[NeverSure]

I can somewhat understand why the US wants to put its dog in the fight. Alternatively, why doesn't the US just withdraw. The millions of men with guns in region are determined to keep it miserable.

US doesn't discount military action, but doesn't want to deploy added troops there. Here's the scenario I see (just dusted off my crystal ball):

Remember when Iraqi troops were fleeing Kuwait when they realized their game was over? Then US fighter jets bombed the allah-excrement out of them on that miserable road going north. Not one single country nor even a UN complaint after that strike. Picture several thousand rag-tag ISIS militants straggling along in the desert, some on foot, some in commandeered jeeps and trucks. Along come a couple US fighter jets (did the Warthogs get mothballed?) ....boom boom boom, (not referring to what a farang does with a Thai floozy) - another trail of vaporized vehicles and bodies in the desert. All so familiar in that part of the world. Will Allah smile or frown? It depends on who He thinks are the bad guys, because everything Allah sees is either black or white, very good or very bad.

But Obama promised to get the US out out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so you can take that to the bank.

I agree with you in total. If Obama is going to hit the insurgents we won't have long to wait. Time's awastin'.

I'd let all of the neanderthals blow each other up, but that's just me.

[NeverSure]

A religious war , Muslim Sunnis against Shia Muslims, started by two infidels Blaire and Buddy, who started a Bush fire that seems to have gone wrong. The wind changed direction.

Blaire and Bush were guided by the Christian God.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

Apparently you can. There were more than 40 countries participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak, United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. At least 15 other countries participated covertly

The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft in 2001 and 2002 was less than in 1999 and 2000 which was during the Clinton administration

LINK

I didn't and don't approve of that war, but let's not forget how it really happened. World news sources are incredibly biased, and lies become legends.

Seems you can make this stuff up...

Op Iraqi Freedom, 2003, saw FOUR nations (see your own link for more details) contributing troops to the actual invasion of Iraq. The US 148,000, UK 45,000, Australia 2,000 and Poland 194. In % terms that works out as 76%, 23%, 1% and a rounding error. The Australian land contingent was a 500 strong SF force, the remainder were naval and air force personnel. The Polish contribution was a squadron of SF plus some NBC specialists. So in essence the 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted by US/UK troops.

Once the invasion was complete some 40 nations then contributed small detachments to the MNF-I, for instance Thailand contributed 400 troops who stayed for a year 2003-04. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated these contingents were withdrawn and the UK/US troops, having been first in, were also last out in 2011.

The contrast with the 1st Gulf War is striking; then 32 nations contributed a total of almost 900,000 troops to the retaking of Kuwait.

Not quite sure about your ordnance dropped figures, but the key year pre 2003 was actually the 4 day Op Desert Fox in Dec 1998, which saw a sustained US/UK air assault on Iraqi targets.

The link to today's disastrous situation in Iraq is fourfold:

1) the 2003 invasion was done way too light (compare the numbers to 1990-91), largely due to Rumsfeld's insistence on a rapid, lightweight invasion force. This ensured that insufficient troops were on the ground to prevent the collapse into anarchy and chaos.

2) the disastrous decision to demobilize and send home the Iraqi army as part of the de-Baathification process created a ready-made, embittered resistance force with the training and equipment to be highly effective. Ironically it seems that many of those leading the ISIS advance are ex-Iraqi army officers pushed out in 2003.

3) the Sykes-Pichot division of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East post WW1. While this suited the needs of France and Britain and helped meet the promise of a Jewish homeland within Palestine as per the Balfour Declaration, it has set the scene for the conflicts in the Middle East in the last 100 years. Iraq was a creation of the British, complete with an imposed monarch from Saudi. The imposed boundaries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Palestine have been a running sore and source of conflict ever since as they were drawn with no regard for the ethnic distribution within the region or previous history.

4) despite being promised a homeland in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the Kurds were subsequently shafted in the Treaty of Lausanne 1923 and were split between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Ironically while the recent events may create a Sunni area covering the Syria/Iraq border, the same chaos may led to the creation of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq and NE Syria. Watch this space for US assistance (overt or otherwise) in support of the Kurdish peshmerga who are the only real hope of combating ISIS in northern Iraq. The payback may well see a final creation of an independent Kurdistan.

Quite how the boundaries of the Middle East end up will be somewhat important, but their redrawing may also possibly resolve many of the longstanding conflicts that plague this region.

I guess you just like to play with symantics. All of those countries supported and involved their troops in the Iraq War. The point was that there should be no singular finger pointing at the US. Get it?

The rest of your post is blabber. If you don't get it that the allies began attacking Iraq during the Clinton administration, and don't buy the link I posted that Clinton did more bombing of Iraq than Bush (who I can't stand) did, I can't help you.

Sounds like Viet Nam all over again doesn't it? Afghanistan will soon be next. Another sorry legacy of US interventionism that will continue as long as the oligarchy can profit from it.

Get out much? We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq.

Now we have to discuss how involved the Brits ARE in Afghanistan? The Brits ARE flying US made stealth drones over Afghanistan and shooting the place up with high tech missiles.

But don't let the truth stop you from hating.

[zydeco]

I'm sure that if they just held an election, things would be alright.

[Fat Haggis]

That's actually quite funny Zydeco but not in a hilariously hahahahah way.

Iraq has been holding elections since 2006 it was a huge issue, and the "purple fingers" were a signal of the beginning of the long turbulent road to a democracy. But now, 3-4-5 elections later, the same man once again has won, although not by a majority as he still needs other parties to side with him, to form a coalition Government, same as what happened in the last General Election.

The Sunnis are not happy as they don't feel they have enough representation (sounds way too familiar here) but they lack the numbers demographically to ever hold power again, and many Shia still see the Sunni's as Ba'athist in nature, and they will never allow this to happen again.

[Bernard Flint]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The first terrorist group to build an Islamic state were the followers of the prohphet.

The Jews kicked out, others forced to convert at the point of a sword, good old Saudi, probably the first country in the world to carry out sectarian cleansing on religious grounds.

The rest they say is history.

You might want to crack open Exodus and have read.

Thought i saw some Korean looking eyes,hidden under the balaclavas of ISIL

[folium]

While I am no fan of Ralph Peters (mainly because he has flip-flopped so many times re his views on Iraq etc), he did produce this classic armchair strategist redrawing of the Middle East boundaries back in 2006. Much of it is plain fantasy but elements of the reshaping of Iraq, Syria, Afghan and "Kurdistan" might not be complete pie in the sky, and might potentially go a long way to lancing some of the more festering boils that plague this region.

Edited June 13, 2014 by folium

[Fat Haggis]

Now that the Kurds have retaken Kirkuk, their ancestral Capital and the Iraqi Army have "bolted" and nowhere to be seen, then I don't see there being any other way of the Iraqi Government, which owes Kurdistan Billions of dollars in oil revenue, in which they can get Kirkuk back from the Peshmerga.

Iraqi PM: "can we have Kirkuk back please" ?

Peshhmerga:"Are you &lt;deleted&gt; serious? your Army left it, and all its inhabitants at the mercy of the ISIS"

Iraqi PM:"but please, pretty please, well not do it again"
Peshmerga:"&lt;deleted&gt; off!!"

Iraqi PM: "That's a bit steep"

Peshmerga: " You and your Army deserted the citizens and responsibilities, you don't deserve to have it"

Iraqi PM : " We'll take it from you!! "

Peshmeraga: " hahahahahahahahaahhahaha you and whose army!!!!"

Kurdistan will no doubt get the autonomy they want, to give them anything less is a slap to the face, especially as the Iraqi Army were bolting out of there faster than Carl Lewis!!!

[thailiketoo]

Amazing that Glenn Beck predicted this was going to happen while he was still working for Fox News in 2010 but of course everybody dismissed him at that time as a nut case

I know no one will watch it but.....

[folium]

Now that the Kurds have retaken Kirkuk, their ancestral Capital and the Iraqi Army have "bolted" and nowhere to be seen, then I don't see there being any other way of the Iraqi Government, which owes Kurdistan Billions of dollars in oil revenue, in which they can get Kirkuk back from the Peshmerga.

Iraqi PM: "can we have Kirkuk back please" ?

Peshhmerga:"Are you <deleted> serious? your Army left it, and all its inhabitants at the mercy of the ISIS"

Iraqi PM:"but please, pretty please, well not do it again"

Peshmerga:"<deleted> off!!"

Iraqi PM: "That's a bit steep"

Peshmerga: " You and your Army deserted the citizens and responsibilities, you don't deserve to have it"

Iraqi PM : " We'll take it from you!! "

Peshmeraga: " hahahahahahahahaahhahaha you and whose army!!!!"

Kurdistan will no doubt get the autonomy they want, to give them anything less is a slap to the face, especially as the Iraqi Army were bolting out of there faster than Carl Lewis!!!

The Kurds making the most of this shambles is a classic pay back for centuries of repression with the most shocking, recent example being the Anfal Campaign of 1986-89. Unfortunately the Kurds are not a monolithic group and have a long history of infighting, and this may again cause them to miss out on the opportunity to create their own independent state as promised to them in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.

The other interesting angle will be Iran's role having long supported Shia elements in southern Iraq. There are reports that Iranian forces have already moved into Iraq to prop up Maliki's regime. There is a strong likelihood that this recent upsurge in Iraq is part of the Saudi-Iran battle for regional supremacy being fought through their respective proxies.

It's all fascinating geopolitical stuff, but presents a nightmarish choice re options (especially given prevailing public opinion in western nations and their poor quality political leadership) for outside powers and could create a new Afghanistan of training camps, logistic support and funding for global terror acts by radicalized, experienced and motivated insurgents who have been recruited from all over.

[Chicog]

While I am no fan of Ralph Peters (mainly because he has flip-flopped so many times re his views on Iraq etc), he did produce this classic armchair strategist redrawing of the Middle East boundaries back in 2006. Much of it is plain fantasy but elements of the reshaping of Iraq, Syria, Afghan and "Kurdistan" might not be complete pie in the sky, and might potentially go a long way to lancing some of the more festering boils that plague this region.

Interesting stuff, but unless you're prepared for an economy with oil at $300/bbl + I'd vote against it.

[folium]

Seems you can make this stuff up...

Op Iraqi Freedom, 2003, saw FOUR nations (see your own link for more details) contributing troops to the actual invasion of Iraq. The US 148,000, UK 45,000, Australia 2,000 and Poland 194. In % terms that works out as 76%, 23%, 1% and a rounding error. The Australian land contingent was a 500 strong SF force, the remainder were naval and air force personnel. The Polish contribution was a squadron of SF plus some NBC specialists. So in essence the 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted by US/UK troops.

Once the invasion was complete some 40 nations then contributed small detachments to the MNF-I, for instance Thailand contributed 400 troops who stayed for a year 2003-04. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated these contingents were withdrawn and the UK/US troops, having been first in, were also last out in 2011.

The contrast with the 1st Gulf War is striking; then 32 nations contributed a total of almost 900,000 troops to the retaking of Kuwait.

Not quite sure about your ordnance dropped figures, but the key year pre 2003 was actually the 4 day Op Desert Fox in Dec 1998, which saw a sustained US/UK air assault on Iraqi targets.

The link to today's disastrous situation in Iraq is fourfold:

1) the 2003 invasion was done way too light (compare the numbers to 1990-91), largely due to Rumsfeld's insistence on a rapid, lightweight invasion force. This ensured that insufficient troops were on the ground to prevent the collapse into anarchy and chaos.

2) the disastrous decision to demobilize and send home the Iraqi army as part of the de-Baathification process created a ready-made, embittered resistance force with the training and equipment to be highly effective. Ironically it seems that many of those leading the ISIS advance are ex-Iraqi army officers pushed out in 2003.

3) the Sykes-Pichot division of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East post WW1. While this suited the needs of France and Britain and helped meet the promise of a Jewish homeland within Palestine as per the Balfour Declaration, it has set the scene for the conflicts in the Middle East in the last 100 years. Iraq was a creation of the British, complete with an imposed monarch from Saudi. The imposed boundaries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Palestine have been a running sore and source of conflict ever since as they were drawn with no regard for the ethnic distribution within the region or previous history.

4) despite being promised a homeland in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the Kurds were subsequently shafted in the Treaty of Lausanne 1923 and were split between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Ironically while the recent events may create a Sunni area covering the Syria/Iraq border, the same chaos may led to the creation of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq and NE Syria. Watch this space for US assistance (overt or otherwise) in support of the Kurdish peshmerga who are the only real hope of combating ISIS in northern Iraq. The payback may well see a final creation of an independent Kurdistan.

Quite how the boundaries of the Middle East end up will be somewhat important, but their redrawing may also possibly resolve many of the longstanding conflicts that plague this region.

I guess you just like to play with symantics. All of those countries supported and involved their troops in the Iraq War. The point was that there should be no singular finger pointing at the US. Get it?

The rest of your post is blabber. If you don't get it that the allies began attacking Iraq during the Clinton administration, and don't buy the link I posted that Clinton did more bombing of Iraq than Bush (who I can't stand) did, I can't help you.

Sounds like Viet Nam all over again doesn't it? Afghanistan will soon be next. Another sorry legacy of US interventionism that will continue as long as the oligarchy can profit from it.

Get out much? We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq.

Now we have to discuss how involved the Brits ARE in Afghanistan? The Brits ARE flying US made stealth drones over Afghanistan and shooting the place up with high tech missiles.

But don't let the truth stop you from hating.

Shame that you can neither spell nor apparently understand the meaning (pun intended) of the word semantics....

Claiming that 40 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is incorrect. The invasion was an almost entirely US/British affair. 36 other nations kicked in small to insignificant sized formations, many of which were earmarked for logistic or humanitarian functions rather than war-fighting, after the invasion as part of MNF-I. These smaller players stayed for a short time, most achieved very little and left as soon as the security situation collapsed.

The fiasco of Iraq 2003-11 was a largely US/UK instigated and conducted operation. Initial tactical success was followed by strategic failure due to the inability to create a proper alliance prior to the invasion, the failure to commit sufficient troops on the ground, the failure to have even rudimentary plans for how to conduct an occupation of Iraq, and the disaster of de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Hubris indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/bush-and-blairs-hubris-in-iraq-means-the-west-is-now-powerless-to-act-against-a-genuine-threat-9532391.html

The responsibility for Iraq falls largely on the shoulders of Bush and Blair, with supporting disastrous roles played by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The US surge in 2007 plus the skilful creation of the Sunni (Awakening) militia largely cleansed Iraq of AQ and other extremists and gave a brief glimmer of hope. Tragically the undue haste exhibited by the US and UK to exit Iraq in 2010-11 led to the shameful situation of leaving a deeply damaged Iraq to fall under another autocrat (Maliki) and a resurgence of the extremists.

Today in both Iraq and Syria the people of these two desperate nations are caught between a sectarian despot on the one hand and sectarian extremists on the other...neither option is either attractive or without significant cost.

[coma]

I'm sure that if they just held an election, things would be alright.

Now where have I heard this before ?

[Asiantravel]

Iraq crisis: Sunni caliphate has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia

Under Obama, Saudi Arabia will continue to be treated as a friendly “moderate” in the Arab world, even though its royal family is founded upon the Wahhabist convictions of the Sunni Islamists in Syria and Iraq – and even though millions of its dollars are arming those same fighters. Thus does Saudi power both feed the monster in the deserts of Syria and Iraq and cosy up to the Western powers that protect it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iraq-crisis-sunni-caliphate-has-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-9533396.html

Edited June 13, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

A religious war , Muslim Sunnis against Shia Muslims, started by two infidels Blaire and Buddy, who started a Bush fire that seems to have gone wrong. The wind changed direction.

Blaire and Bush were guided by the Christian God.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

Apparently you can. There were more than 40 countries participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak, United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. At least 15 other countries participated covertly

The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft in 2001 and 2002 was less than in 1999 and 2000 which was during the Clinton administration

LINK

I didn't and don't approve of that war, but let's not forget how it really happened. World news sources are incredibly biased, and lies become legends.

"The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft in 2001 and 2002 was less than in 1999 and 2000"

That would be right: the Invasion/War started in 2003.

[Jay Sata]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

All those lives and a hell of a lot of money wasted for what?

As we saw with Vietnam US foreign policy never works and Afghanistan is just as bad now as when America tried to achieve what Russia had failed.

I don't understand why these butchers could not have been taken out by drones days ago.

Where is all the high tech military stuff and why is it not being used? I thought those spy satellites could seen a pin on the ground.

[capcc76]

Amazing that Glenn Beck predicted this was going to happen while he was still working for Fox News in 2010 but of course everybody dismissed him at that time as a nut case

He is a nutcase, but he does get some things very right when it comes to Islam and the Middle East.

A broken clock gets it right 2 times a day.

[capcc76]

A religious war , Muslim Sunnis against Shia Muslims, started by two infidels Blaire and Buddy, who started a Bush fire that seems to have gone wrong. The wind changed direction.

Blaire and Bush were guided by the Christian God.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

You couldn,t make this stuff up.

Apparently you can. There were more than 40 countries participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Members of the Coalition included Australia: 2,000 invasion, Poland: 200 invasion2,500 peak, United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion, United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion. Other members of the coalition were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. At least 15 other countries participated covertly

The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft in 2001 and 2002 was less than in 1999 and 2000 which was during the Clinton administration

LINK

I didn't and don't approve of that war, but let's not forget how it really happened. World news sources are incredibly biased, and lies become legends.

"The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft in 2001 and 2002 was less than in 1999 and 2000"

That would be right: the Invasion/War started in 2003.

I know! What a numbskull statement.

Edited June 13, 2014 by capcc76

[Ulysses G.]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

[Morch]

There have been armed conflicts in that region since the once-pristine wetlands along the Tigris and Euphrates were destroyed. From the time humans began overpopulating that region, and destroying natural habitat, it's been on and off conflict and misery. I say, let the militias take property, let the Sunni regions join with equally screwed up Syria - or let them create their own Sharia Law miserable little land-locked fiefdom. Re-draw the lines in the desert, I don't give a flying fig, as long as they don't spread their environment-destroying, female-prosecuting culture further afield.

Well, seems like a substantial part of ISIS isn't exactly homegrown, and quite obvious they do not care much for borders as such. I would guess that if successful they would just change the IS to I+First initial of next country. Not like the local population in necessarily in-love with them. So looks like they're already busy spreading their views further afield.

[Chicog]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

Not even close.

Taking out Saddam started all this. It was always going to destabilise Iraq.

Just that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld trousered millions through their Halliburton, KBR and Carlyle connections then dumped it in the next administration's lap.

Try as hard as you like, you can't pin this on the black man.

Added: And now you've seen how easily the Iraqi military has been overcome, you have an idea of just how quickly the Taleban will resume business as usual once America pulls out.

All a titanic waste of time and money - but not for Bush and his posse of freaks.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Chicog

[NeverSure]

Seems you can make this stuff up...

Op Iraqi Freedom, 2003, saw FOUR nations (see your own link for more details) contributing troops to the actual invasion of Iraq. The US 148,000, UK 45,000, Australia 2,000 and Poland 194. In % terms that works out as 76%, 23%, 1% and a rounding error. The Australian land contingent was a 500 strong SF force, the remainder were naval and air force personnel. The Polish contribution was a squadron of SF plus some NBC specialists. So in essence the 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted by US/UK troops.

Once the invasion was complete some 40 nations then contributed small detachments to the MNF-I, for instance Thailand contributed 400 troops who stayed for a year 2003-04. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated these contingents were withdrawn and the UK/US troops, having been first in, were also last out in 2011.

The contrast with the 1st Gulf War is striking; then 32 nations contributed a total of almost 900,000 troops to the retaking of Kuwait.

Not quite sure about your ordnance dropped figures, but the key year pre 2003 was actually the 4 day Op Desert Fox in Dec 1998, which saw a sustained US/UK air assault on Iraqi targets.

The link to today's disastrous situation in Iraq is fourfold:

1) the 2003 invasion was done way too light (compare the numbers to 1990-91), largely due to Rumsfeld's insistence on a rapid, lightweight invasion force. This ensured that insufficient troops were on the ground to prevent the collapse into anarchy and chaos.

2) the disastrous decision to demobilize and send home the Iraqi army as part of the de-Baathification process created a ready-made, embittered resistance force with the training and equipment to be highly effective. Ironically it seems that many of those leading the ISIS advance are ex-Iraqi army officers pushed out in 2003.

3) the Sykes-Pichot division of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East post WW1. While this suited the needs of France and Britain and helped meet the promise of a Jewish homeland within Palestine as per the Balfour Declaration, it has set the scene for the conflicts in the Middle East in the last 100 years. Iraq was a creation of the British, complete with an imposed monarch from Saudi. The imposed boundaries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Palestine have been a running sore and source of conflict ever since as they were drawn with no regard for the ethnic distribution within the region or previous history.

4) despite being promised a homeland in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the Kurds were subsequently shafted in the Treaty of Lausanne 1923 and were split between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Ironically while the recent events may create a Sunni area covering the Syria/Iraq border, the same chaos may led to the creation of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq and NE Syria. Watch this space for US assistance (overt or otherwise) in support of the Kurdish peshmerga who are the only real hope of combating ISIS in northern Iraq. The payback may well see a final creation of an independent Kurdistan.

Quite how the boundaries of the Middle East end up will be somewhat important, but their redrawing may also possibly resolve many of the longstanding conflicts that plague this region.

I guess you just like to play with symantics. All of those countries supported and involved their troops in the Iraq War. The point was that there should be no singular finger pointing at the US. Get it?

The rest of your post is blabber. If you don't get it that the allies began attacking Iraq during the Clinton administration, and don't buy the link I posted that Clinton did more bombing of Iraq than Bush (who I can't stand) did, I can't help you.

Sounds like Viet Nam all over again doesn't it? Afghanistan will soon be next. Another sorry legacy of US interventionism that will continue as long as the oligarchy can profit from it.

Get out much? We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq.

Now we have to discuss how involved the Brits ARE in Afghanistan? The Brits ARE flying US made stealth drones over Afghanistan and shooting the place up with high tech missiles.

But don't let the truth stop you from hating.

Shame that you can neither spell nor apparently understand the meaning (pun intended) of the word semantics....

Claiming that 40 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is incorrect. The invasion was an almost entirely US/British affair. 36 other nations kicked in small to insignificant sized formations, many of which were earmarked for logistic or humanitarian functions rather than war-fighting, after the invasion as part of MNF-I. These smaller players stayed for a short time, most achieved very little and left as soon as the security situation collapsed.

The fiasco of Iraq 2003-11 was a largely US/UK instigated and conducted operation. Initial tactical success was followed by strategic failure due to the inability to create a proper alliance prior to the invasion, the failure to commit sufficient troops on the ground, the failure to have even rudimentary plans for how to conduct an occupation of Iraq, and the disaster of de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Hubris indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/bush-and-blairs-hubris-in-iraq-means-the-west-is-now-powerless-to-act-against-a-genuine-threat-9532391.html

The responsibility for Iraq falls largely on the shoulders of Bush and Blair, with supporting disastrous roles played by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The US surge in 2007 plus the skilful creation of the Sunni (Awakening) militia largely cleansed Iraq of AQ and other extremists and gave a brief glimmer of hope. Tragically the undue haste exhibited by the US and UK to exit Iraq in 2010-11 led to the shameful situation of leaving a deeply damaged Iraq to fall under another autocrat (Maliki) and a resurgence of the extremists.

Today in both Iraq and Syria the people of these two desperate nations are caught between a sectarian despot on the one hand and sectarian extremists on the other...neither option is either attractive or without significant cost.

Being the spelling police doesn't win you a debate. Just because I struck the name of a famous software company instead of the word I wanted doesn't preclude you from knowing what I meant.

I will no longer debate you until you learn to read and stop misquoting me and therefore go off into irrelevant tangents. I said:

"We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq."

And you said:

"Claiming that 40 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is incorrect."

Go back to school and learn the difference between "Took part in the invasion" and "Were in Iraq." I was correct.

You are not going to win debates with a lack of reading comprehension nor by nitpicking spelling.